Uganda’s High Court has dismissed an application by Dr Kizza Besigye and his co-accused seeking a Constitutional Court interpretation on what constitutes adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence, paving the way for their treason trial to proceed as scheduled.
In a ruling delivered late yesterday evening via email, Justice Emmanuel Baguma held that the questions raised by the defence did not amount to substantial constitutional issues requiring interpretation by the Constitutional Court.
“I am not satisfied that the questions of law proposed and framed for constitutional interpretation warrant a reference to the Constitutional Court,” Justice Baguma ruled.
The judge directed parties to return for a preliminary hearing on June 8 and maintained earlier orders requiring the prosecution to commence presenting its case on June 11.
The application for constitutional reference was made shortly after court issued trial management directions following full disclosure by the prosecution.
Lawyers representing Dr Besigye and his co-accused, Hajji Obeid Lutale Kamulegeya, argued that the seven days between disclosure and the preliminary hearing were insufficient to prepare an effective defence in a complex treason case.
The defence proposed three constitutional questions for referral, including whether seven days amounted to adequate time under Article 28(3)(c) of the Constitution, whether requiring lawyers to access their detained clients during weekends and public holidays was consistent with the right to a fair hearing, and whether fixing trial dates before completion of preliminary proceedings violated constitutional guarantees.
However, Justice Baguma rejected all three grounds.
On the question of preparation time, the judge held that one week was sufficient for parties to prepare for a preliminary hearing.
“In my view, one week is adequate time for parties to come for a preliminary hearing,” he said.
The judge also noted that the prosecution’s latest disclosure mainly concerned the identities of six witnesses whose details had previously been concealed.
He observed that the defence had already received earlier disclosures on January 21, March 4 and March 11.
“All this time, in my view, the defence was in possession of all the facts and documents to enable them prepare for a preliminary hearing,” he ruled.
Regarding access to detained clients, Justice Baguma said the court had already taken steps to safeguard the accused persons’ fair trial rights by directing prison authorities to facilitate meetings between lawyers and their clients during weekends and public holidays.
The court had earlier heard from prison authorities that exceptions existed allowing such access in appropriate circumstances.
Justice Baguma further found that directing the prosecution to prepare witnesses ahead of the preliminary hearing did not prejudice the accused persons or infringe on their constitutional rights.
“The above directions, in my view, do not violate any right of the accused persons,” he stated.
The judge cautioned against turning routine case-management decisions into constitutional disputes.
“Otherwise, it would mean referring all directions of court to the Constitutional Court for interpretation,” he said.
Background
The treason case involves Ugandan opposition politician Dr Kizza Besigye, his political aide Hajji Obeid Lutale Kamulegeya, and UPDF officer Denis Oola.
Prosecutors allege that the trio participated in meetings held in Uganda and abroad between 2023 and 2024 as part of a plot to overthrow the government.
The prosecution is expected to call several witnesses, including former Chief of Military Intelligence Maj Gen James Birungi.
Last week, the Director of Public Prosecutions withdrew an application seeking witness protection orders for six prosecution witnesses, saying the proceedings were delaying the commencement of the substantive trial.
